Exactly when did "liberals" decide to stop being tolerant?

As I remember, one of the core tennents of the "liberal" belief system was tolerance of others...in esence, an emphasis on the ideas:

-that government ought not dictate what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors.
-freedom of press.
-very strong support of free speech.

Basically an overall belief that as long as someone is doing or saying something that doesn't hurt anyone else, they ought to be able to do it and society and government should protect that person and their right to express themselves.

But that has diminished a great deal. The hatred by some of the left wing posters on this site is quite palpable. There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.

I'd argue that the concepts I listed above have been taken over by mostly libertarian leaning folks out there. That there are very few true liberals anymore, and that the entire liberal concept has been forcefully outdated, leaving the political spectrum worse for the wear.

IMO it really won't be too long before we see drastic changes in what is considered freedom of speech. I'm already seeing situations where people are asking to move with like minded people. Where if you don't agree with the lifestyle someone else lives, your immediately branded as a person of "hate". Where you are considered an inappropriate parent if you fail to teach your children an appropriately "tolerant" point of view as part of their upbringing.

I don't think Christians...and lets be clear here...your use of the term Conservatives here means exactly "Born again Protestant Christian"....hate anyone.
I think theres a pretty large gap between "I don't think gays should be married" to "I hate people and want them to die". Theres even a really large gap between "I don't like gays" and "I want gays to die".

IMO it really won't be too long before we see drastic changes in what is considered freedom of speech. I'm already seeing situations where people are asking to move with like minded people. Where if you don't agree with the lifestyle someone else lives, your immediately branded as a person of "hate". Where you are considered an inappropriate parent if you fail to teach your children an appropriately "tolerant" point of view as part of their upbringing.

I just don't get this republican viewpoint. Look around you, so much time and money has been spent in legislation against gays. Preventing them from getting married, preventing them from visitng loved ones in hospitals, preventing them from adopting kids, calling them all sorts of names. So they fight back and the conservative position is -oh my God my free speech rights are being violated-oh my God the constitution-oh, oh my God-swoon..

The most dramatic drag queen could not compete with some of these republicans. The first amendment works like this-you say what you want and the gays/whoever say what they want. Not you say what you want and they are supposed to shut up and agree with whatever you say. If you don't like what they say-come up with a better argument.

violated-oh my God the constitution-oh, oh my God-swoon..
The most dramatic drag queen could not compete with some of these republicans. The first amendment works like this-you

And then there is the key word "some".

Personally, I am Christian.

But I do not presume to know what God wants or does not want. He has given us guidelines by which to live. He has not given us instructions to determine who is or is not Christian and who is or is not saved.

If someone is gay...and all indications are that it is indeed caused by a combinations of genetic and environmental factors....its not within the scope of my understanding to judge that person.

If you spoke with Christians in depth, and I'll admit that sometimes there are many layers to peel through, you will find more often than not their understanding will be the same as mine.

What is portrayed in the media is intentional and is from people who desire media attention.

Me personally, I have no agenda against anyone for the way they choose to live, provided they do not hurt others.

Preventing from adoption and marriage...I can see where it comes from although I do not entirely agree with that agenda. Everything else, I think is hyperbole and smoke and mirrors. At least in any sort of mass numbers.

The hatred by some of the left wing posters on this site is quite palpable. There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.

And there's your problem. You think "left" and "liberal" mean the same thing. They don't.

A liberal believes that people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want with absolutely no interference from government as long as they are not harming another or infringing upon another's rights (actually, these two things are the same).

But that has diminished a great deal. The hatred by some of the left wing posters on this site is quite palpable. There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.

Utter bullshit. I beg conservatives to share ideas. I love arguing over ideology and economic theory. I spent my entire holiday weekend having Republicans yell "NO POLITICS" because they don't dare try and support corrupt positions.

Do you know what liberals and moderates are intolerant of? Lies. Almost all "political" debate on this board very quickly degenerates into a discussion about what is real and what is fiction, at which point one or both sides become frustrated and make it personal.

I'll give one example because that is what people should do when they make an assertion: Support it!

Obama is generally considered on the right to have broken most/all of his campaign promises. This is an excellent test of reality because each specific case can be examined, picked apart, and ruled on a campaign promised kept or a campaign promise broken. This exact issue has come up more times than I can remember and most recently with Mr. shuddup.

My opening volley is simply to link an objective page on campaign promises kept or broken. Here's the top 25 listed at Politifact although they have tracked 100s. A few are broken promises but most are kept or compromised on.

A logical and intelligent American who still wants to believe that Obama is this awful promise breaker has the option to dig deeper. He can pick one or more of these and disagree with politifact. Does he do this?

NO FUCKING WAY EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Republicans and fake not-republicans on this site would rather cook their own arm in a fryer and eat it with mustard than actually agree or disagree with their own original point in any meaningful way.

To destroy the argument entirely, to prevent any further examination, learning, or even understanding, they will ALWAYS EVERY FUCKING TIME WITHOUT EXCEPTION attack the source and run away.

What am I intolerant of? Ideas? No. Conservatism? No. Starry eyed ideological prose? No. A blanket denial of reality in order to continue support of a delusion? Yes.

I'm intolerant of idiots who don't care about reality in every single political thread posted on this board. You have the right to an opinion, but you don't want an opinion. You want converts to your cult and zombies who aren't allowed to question the dogma. I am intolerant of the GOP religious cult and people who refuse to support in any way shape or form the reasons for their blind faith.

-that government ought not dictate what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors.
-freedom of press.
-very strong support of free speech.

Basically an overall belief that as long as someone is doing or saying something that doesn't hurt anyone else, they ought to be able to do it and society and government should protect that person and their right to express themselves.

But that has diminished a great deal. The hatred by some of the left wing posters on this site is quite palpable. There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.

This is utter nonsense. The simple act of disagreeing with another is not an abridgment of free speech. You are extremely confused.

-that government ought not dictate what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors.

-freedom of press.

-very strong support of free speech.

Basically an overall belief that as long as someone is doing or saying something that doesn't hurt anyone else, they ought to be able to do it and society and government should protect that person and their right to express themselves.

But that has diminished a great deal. The hatred by some of the left wing posters on this site is quite palpable. There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.

This is utter nonsense. The simple act of disagreeing with another is not an abridgment of free speech. You are extremely confused.

Wow, absolutely awesome how several posters go on to prove my point....

You have yet to provide any argument that even attempts to support your point. You think that just saying it makes it true.

Example: You haven't given one single instance of anyone doing anything to limit any speech in any media while simultaneously accusing people of shutting down speech. This is retarded. That's my free speech opinion.

All your stream-of-consciousness public butthurt here is a cry for help from your inner self, trying to tell that you are utterly wrong on a lot.

Let's get back to your original retarded statement:

"There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others."

This is because, as I said in my original, conservative ideas are stupid ideas. Eg. discriminating against gay people, antipathy towards what conservatives call "macroevolution", love of militarism and a burning desire to invade Iraq in 2003, a casual disregard of the mounting science of anthropogenic climate change aka "Global Warming", a belief that tax cuts in the US will raise revenue, "honest money" is necessary to reduce financial system instability, a lack of understanding that poor people in general and minorities in particular did not actually cause the 2004-2007 Housing Bubble, that this is a Christian nation or that biblical "Judeo-Christian" morality is a useful philosophy, or that the top 10% owning 90% of this country and the top 5% earning about a third of the national income is good, proper and should be defended as the trend of income disparity increases over the decades.

As iwog said above, you have yet to offer one iota of support for your conservative ideas.

This is because you, inside, agree that they have been demonstrably stupid, but you -- like millions of Americans -- are stuck in the psychopolitical bed you have made for yourself.

For the record, I enjoy taking apart all stupid ideas when I'm online, conservative AND "liberal". Though these days "liberal" tends to be center-right, too.

To find actual stupid leftish stuff one has to look at whatever stupid things Europeans do from time to time. (edit: or our unfunded state pension liabilities . . . what a cf that's going to be!)

This shift in American politics is perfectly illustrated by the present last-ditch conservative opposition to "ObamaCare", even though the damn thing was originally proposed by Senate conservatives in 1993 and championed as recently as 2005 by the Heritage Foundation.

This nation has dozens of very serious challenges facing it, and most of these issues are "conservative"-created and/or are going to require "liberal" solutions.

But conservatives have allied themselves with the "Party of No" -- actually they've strengthened their hold over what was the pro-capitalist Republican party of the 19th century by merging in the social conservatism of what was the Southern Democrat contingent -- and the continued obstructionism of one half of our system is going to increase our difficulties, not actually fix anything.

I believe everything has gone completely shithouse since the 9th Century and that 8th Century values are the basis upon which the Constitution was written and the Framers codified. Therefore, all those radical amendments, like the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments must fucking go!

If you don't defend my right to be correct about all of this, you are a fascist fuck and deserve to die because you hate Freedom.

I believe everything has gone completely shithouse since the 9th Century and that 8th Century values are the basis upon which the Constitution was written and the Framers codified. Therefore, all those radical amendments, like the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments must fucking go!

The hatred by some of the left wing posters on this site is quite palpable. There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.

And there's your problem. You think "left" and "liberal" mean the same thing. They don't.

A liberal believes that people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want with absolutely no interference from government as long as they are not harming another or infringing upon another's rights (actually, these two things are the same).

I think this is probably the most correct answer in the entire thread.

Wow, absolutely awesome how several posters go on to prove my point....

You have yet to provide any argument that even attempts to support your point. You think that just saying it makes it true.

Example: You haven't given one single instance of anyone doing anything to limit any speech in any media while simultaneously accusing people of shutting down speech. This is retarded. That's my free speech opinion.

Hey, its fine to disagree, but if I think you are incorrect, imma shout you down, use any angle I can to disparage and mischaracterize you and insta invalidate your opinion.

You invalidate your own opinion when you refuse to support it.

Not really. The spew you, and in particular Bellingham Bill went on are beyond my scope to argue with, mostly due to my own time constraints along with the limitations presented by the Pat.net posting format.

Of course you knew that(the pat.net) posting restrictions before you even posted. Which is one of the many reasons you are a troll.

Privatize everything and "pay-as-you-go" seems the fairest way for goods to be distributed to those opposed to a progressive tax and believe everyone should be paying exactly for what they get. It seems the people against 'unfair' redistribution hate that some people benefit more than others for certain governmental services. They lament the diabetic milking medicaid while having to pay for his own health costs out of pocket. They (at least in theory should) lament a family needing 30 firefighters to put out a fire on their estate while never having needed the services of firefighters themselves. These 'fairists' seem to lean towards one of two directions.

In one direction, there are those okay with taxes, provided everyone pays the exact same rate in income tax or in consumption tax. They also HATE free-loading thieves and believe the redistribution of services must be absolutely equatable in their eyes, which usually means no welfare of any sort, no gov't subsidized health care, no tax deductions and most other programs. Basically, they are okay with taxes that provide some sort of defense from danger, enforces laws and pays for transportation (except public transportation because that's a waste of money and no one uses it and it's unamerican).

The other direction are the "pay-as-you-goers" hardcore libertarians or minarchists. They believe everything should be privatized with the government role to be to be absentee politicoids who ensure everything is privatized and the constitution is strictly adhered to. Their hierarchy of governance: Federal politicians, "Leave it up to the states to decide." State politicians, "Leave it up to the city/counties to decide". City/county politicians, "Leave it up to the districts/towns/lowest level of governance to decide." District/town/lowest level governance politicians, "leave it up to the most powerful and influential groups to decide."

Not really. The spew you, and in particular Bellingham Bill went on are beyond my scope to argue with, mostly due to my own time constraints along with the limitations presented by the Pat.net posting format.

You did exactly what I predicted you'd do. You never made an argument. You never supported your point. You just ran away again because someone disagreed with you.

But that has diminished a great deal. The hatred by some of the left wing posters on this site is quite palpable. There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others

very clearly indicates that you believe "intolerance" is nothing more than disagreement; a statement that you called a straw man. You are very clearly demonstrating exactly why right-wingers are held in so much contempt.

Is that what you consider intolerance? The contempt people have of lying, evasion, misdirection, and misrepresentation not to mention the absolute utter failure to make any argument whatsoever? Contempt isn't intolerance. The naked fact that you're allowed to post this drivel proves that no one is intolerant of it.

The problem is that the right-wing lies and propaganda became so effective that the 1% had their way with the entire country, and almost half the country was so blinded by the lies that they could not even see what was going on.

So, yes, we are now completely intolerant of lies (as Iwog said already, I'll give him credit once).

I suppose about the same time aggressive conservatives decided to become whiners...

Sorry dude, when I look back over the posts on this site I see a lot more aggression and vehemence from those who identify as conservatives. The angst you're expressing now is simply frustrate at not feeling "on top" anymore.

Who knows if you are or aren't anymore but maybe try to handle the feeling with a bit more dignity.

At this point I do want to point out that I have maybe encountered one or two intelligent things said by conservatives on this site. For one, I can remember Honest Abe going on about silver coinage prompting me to research what money actually was and supposed to be, and that opened my eyes to how I had just grown up with money around me and hadn't actually thought about what it really was all that much.

This is not about "toleration". Toleration implies accepting the somewhat unacceptable. Intelligent ideas need no "toleration"!

It's the stupid shit -- the lies, the bullshit unfounded slagging on the 'left' -- here that requires our toleration, and there's a lot of that. Be intelligent and we can all get along : )

Until an acceptable definition of "liberal" can be agreed to by those commenting, this is pretty much a pointless argument. For example, I have a real hard time with your premise that many of yesterday's liberals are today's libertarians.

If a more general interpretation of your thesis could be summarized as it seems that people are more entrenched in their own, intolerant ideology than ever before, I would say, "Welcome to the internet!"

To days Liberals are either happy people that don't want to be marginalized by other happy people. So they want the other would be happy people to give up things that makes them the happiest the most. I'm talking to you, Warren Buffet.

Or unhappy people that don't want anyone happier than they are, so they spend a lot of time crafting up ways to crap on every ones parade.
"What do you mean I can't ride my "Big Al's gay boat ride" float in the St. Patrick's day parade?"

Homeboy posted "The simple act of disagreeing with another is not an abridgment of free speech".

In otherwords he builds a strawman. I never argued about anyone abridging free speech.

You wrote, in the very first post, that one of the core "tennents" [sic] of the liberal belief system was "very strong support of free speech." Then you wrote "But that has diminished a great deal". And later, you wrote, "IMO it really won't be too long before we see drastic changes in what is considered freedom of speech."

How can you now say that you "never argued about anyone abridging free speech"? Did someone steal your screenname?

As I remember, one of the core tennents of the "liberal" belief system was tolerance of others...in esence, an emphasis on the ideas:

like I said above, what I hate is all the stupidity. Southern rednecks, christian fundamentalists, and conservative republicans don't have the market cornered on stupidity, but it's close and there's certainly a massive nexus of the stuff to be found in these three communites -- which, to be honest here, largely overlap.

The Southern Baptist bible belt is in the South, and while there's a libertarian unabomber streak in the midwest, the midwest is also very much fundamentalist Christian -- "Christianist" actually -- these days.

like I said above, what I hate is all the stupidity. Education Union elitists, gay fundamentalists, and Liberal Democrats don't have the market cornered on stupidity, but it's close and there's certainly a massive nexus of the stuff to be found in these three communites -- which, to be honest here, largely overlap.

The California Liberal belt is in the West, and while there's an elitists Weathermen streak in the North East, the North East is also very much deviant perversion -- "Perversionist" actually -- these days.

(I'm finding it hard to spoof a guys post about IDIOTS that riddled with typos and bad grammar everywhere. I'm just as bad, but hey I don't go around calling everyone I disagree with an Idiot.)